One for All; Screw the Rest

Have you ever been in an debate where a person/party will point to a specific case/example, and use it as a generalization of their entire argument?

On the surface, that makes sense. We often take anecdotal evidence as one of the best kinds. Worse yet, we accept eyewitness testimony as concrete and absolute, even though it's been proven to be pretty unreliable. As long as you don't dig too deep or don't think too hard, then that sort of support and evidence makes sense.

"But Kyle," you retort, "if such scenario really happened, then how can it not be a good example?" excellent question, reader. Just why don't such things work as well as we all think they should? Because of Logic. The crusher of hopes and dreams. The destroyer of all that once was, and all that will be.

The problem with cherry picking one example and using it as a blanket statement is that it leads to a little fallacy called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Wikipedia describes it as "No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule."  Basically, it's using one example, and denouncing the counterexample as not being true to the original example. See the problem there? It's even worse when both parties are committing the fallacy, and using it against each other like some sort of logic braking, horribly argued, orgy.

Back to the subject. I'm sure you've all been pestered (or have done the pestering) about the Zimmerman trial. Now, before you being shouting your opinions about it, let's set something clear: we're not going to talk about the outcomes, or whether this man did this with his gun, or whether Florida really is some sort of bastardized combination of a gun and penis (it is); just using the trial as an example. I know, that sounds contradictory to my last paragraph, but just roll with me.

People have been using the Zimmerman trial as an example for the whole legal system. "It's all corrupt," they say. "Everything's about race," they chant. "Florida's gun laws are stupid and unfair!" (See above penis joke.) The point is that they take this even, being that it's recent, and slap it on like some sort of judicial concealer, hiding every other case that could be used to make some hollow point in an argument that amounts to vast nothingness.

It's not just court cases either. Go back and read a previous post of mine. Their are plenty of examples in which one example is used as the catch all. The only problem is, this goes a step further. Suddenly, one example becomes the only viable. And daring to counter-argue the point makes you the bad guy. Because presenting a counter point is obviously the wrong thing to do in an argument.

But where can all of this be seen? In everything. Notably those with (or have the illusion of) power. The argument goes as such.

Person with power (The Man): "Drones and advanced CIA reconnaissance are the reasons why we were able to locate person-of-special-interest."
Man who dares to point out obvious flaw: "But what about the numerous times when no such person was apprehended and innocent people were injured."
The Man: "Sacrifices have to be made to accomplish our goals."

You see that? That total bullshit excuse there? How one case justifies everything else done? Now let's fast forward a year.

The Man: (getting ready for more drone strikes) "Past missions have proven these measures to be highly effective in accomplishing our goals. As such, we'll be putting more drones onto the battlefield to better help our troops." 

Now how did that change? It didn't over time, it just became the standard. Because X happened, X is now the standard, despite countering Y and/or Z. It just makes no damn sense. 

Giving and Taking

"Hey, its anon, whaddup. How does Kyle feel about cheating? Whether its infidelity or in school, is it normal to cheat sometimes?" -Anon

Cheating. A broad subject, like Anon described. You have your "boom-boom buddy" sort of cheating and your "what do any of these Spanish words mean?" sort of cheating. Of course, there are other sorts of cheating, but since this blog is meant for teenagers, we'll focus on the two most common types among them.

Necking it

Being predictable as I am, I'll start off with the first type listed; that being the "pimpin' it" type. First thing's first: both males and females are capable of cheating on their significant (though, if they're cheating, that term is to be used loosely) other(s). That's right; it's not just the scum bag men who go around and play genital peek-a-boo. Women can set the ol' minnow trap too. True, there may be some statistical difference in the numbers, but that's not the point. Both sexes of our species can engage in extra-relationshipal (is that even a word?) affairs. Of course, women are more likely to commit to emotional affairs, but that's harder to write jokes about.

I'm sure we've all read Facebook statuses or tweets about "Mi man b cheetin on mi wit sum ho. W/e byy boo." Or "Mane, i saw mi gurl cheatin on me wit sum other guy. He gonna git his ass beet." Of course, those sound like extremely ridiculous examples, but the point stands that there are people who just throw their junk all around, both male and female.

"Get to the point, Kyle." Fine, but no more comedy gold for you.

Is all of this unfaithfulness and infidelity morally wrong? It's generally agreed that it is.

"Of course!" You shout at me, through your monitor. "Why wouldn't it be? Stop being such an idiot, Kyle."

But is it biologically wrong, or even irregular? Well, it can be argued that it isn't, especially for males. Among the other mammalian species on this planet, many males attempt to spread their genes as far and wide as they can. Survival of the fittest, right?

"Stop trying to give an excuse for what stupid men do!" The feminist in you will rage. Well, feminist, I have something for you: I'M NOT. Just because humans are -- to an extent -- biologically driven animals lusting for only the most basic of needs, we are far more intelligent than other species; even if that point can be argued based on the few people each of us know. Not just do we have a higher intelligence, but we have the marvelous gift of sentience; where we are self aware and acknowledge that other people have thoughts and feelings of their own.

What's all this mean? That biological urges are no excuse for any sort of infidelity that could happen. As higher organisms, we must acknowledge that we have the capabilities to control our bodies and manipulate them in such ways as to avoid insulting and muddying the mutually agreed upon, give-take interactions that you originally formed with one other organism. In lay man's terms: don't ruin your relationship by going all James Bond of every women you see, males. And females, don't blindly follow your hearts because "it just feels like it was meant to be." You wanna know the results of either scenario? I'll give you a hint, the twist at the end isn't like the ones in romantic comedies.

Paper Peeking

Now we're at the more ambiguous part of the post: cheating in school. Is it really bad to cheat in school. Is failing a course, but being able to say "hey, at least I didn't cheat" really worth whatever amount of pride one might derive from the statement? Or is it better to cut corners and maybe take a peek at that page you ripped out of the book (yea, I've heard of that happening), pass the class, and not look like a failure and disappointment to whoever might be glaring at you judgmentally, just waiting for you to slip up.

The ever-chivalrous knight in me doth declare "Thine honor is thou life! Thous musn't ever forfeit it!" Of course, there's also the more "rouge-ish" character who abides by "Hey, if you can get away with it and everyone is happy, how could it be so bad?" And both of them are right.

As far as I see it, there's only one stipulation: if you, through your own effort, could pass the tests and class without cheating. If you're cheating just out of sheer laziness, then I personally will pity your pathetic mortal frame, akin to how Sauron gazed upon Frodo. If there was no way in all of Hell for you to pass that class without glancing at those words inked on your hand, then maybe my unforgiving eye will look the other way. That's just how I roll.

Of course, the factor of sentience can be brought in. If we know we're doing something that we consider wrong, should we still do it?

With this sort of school system, what's it matter anyway? I mean, you really only have to do decently well, then pass the final at the end of the class. Don't even get me started on if it's a standardized test. Then again, you probably shouldn't cheat on those...

The fact of the matter is, it's normal to cheat. The temptation is too strong sometimes, and glancing over at the really-smart-kid's paper for the answer to number five is the easiest and smartest way out. Like many matters, this one's a real gray (or grey) area for me. Sure, I've cheated in school before. Always in Spanish, but I've still cheated before. Does that mean I always cheat? No. Most of the time, I do pretty well, and when I need a little boost, I'll open up the book or grab a buddy with which to study.

At the end of it all, it's really up to you to decide. Decide to follow my opinions, that is!

I kid. Be sentient, dammit!

Give Hugs

"Perhaps next time you could rant about the teenagers who use drugs. Maybe do a versus on the teens who do it to be 'cool', and those who use it as a coping method and the pros (however few) and cons of each." -Anon

Quite the request you have there, Anon. This'll probably be really biased, but let's see how this goes.

Let's get this out of the way: I do not condone the use of drugs (as in illegal and controlled substances) in any form or fashion. Nor do I condone the abuse of legal drugs. I'm not going to sugar-coat any of that, and feel free to dissent with me. I'll try to explain why in this post.

Let's go with the first group: teens who do it for funsies. Or to be cool. Or whatever those crazy kids are doing these days. If any one reading this happens to fall into this category, let me tell you something: you better get the hell out of that stuff. Seriously, you may be "cool" and "hip" and "radilicious" now, but 10 years down the road, when you're hooked (if you aren't already) on the crap and doing back alley favors for your next fix, it won't be so cool. In fact, people will look down on you. Maybe in pity, maybe in contempt, maybe even as a sort of joke. TO most people, addicts are some of the worst in society. This may stem from the natural infatuation we have with our free will. When you get addicted to something, it's almost like you're giving up a piece of yourself -- a piece of your free will -- to some inanimate object. What shouldn't have power over you does, and as sentient beings, we look at that in a rather negative light.

"What could possibly be the pros of that, Kyle?" Well, honestly, it's hard to say. I can really only come up with one reason: to be socially accepted. I'm pretty sure in my last post, I talked about social acceptance and the tendency to conform, but just in case, I'll talk some more about it.

As a species, we thrive on social interactions. We've evolved to need other humans in our lives, and because of that, we have a tendency to crave others' acceptance.

So, if you're friends or those popular kids are doing drugs, and you think that they'll like you more for doing said drugs, you just might to be accepted. That's a normal tendency in humans. What isn't normal is using a chemical synthetic (sometimes it's natural, but still applies) to change the chemistry of your brain. I could go on and on about all the things that happen in your brain, but that'd be going off on a tangent, and I do that enough as it is.

The possible cons? Check four paragraphs back. I'm pretty sure that covers the negative aspects of wanting to be cool.

Now, to the second group of teens: the kind who do it to cope. This part will probably sound a bit more sympathetic, but don't get me wrong; it's still not cool and really unhealthy. Possibly more-so than doing it to be cool.

We'll mix it up a bit. let's do the pros of this kind first.

Chemicals are a great way to change your mood and brain chemistry. Many drugs have a chemical structure similar to a natural compound called dopamine. The drug molecules bind to the dopamine receptors in your brain (which normally function as a reward system) and make you feel better. Chemically feel better. In text, it sounds like magic.

"A way to instantly change your mood? Sign me up!" I won't. Mostly because I don't have a sign-up sheet. Wait. You shouldn't want to do drugs!

But still, if as a coping method, drugs technically one of the best options. Add to their rather quick acting effects, and you've got yourself happy juice in a needle.

"But, Kyle." You'll say as you always do when you want to ask me a question or contradict me. "How could any of that be bad?" As always, I have an answer for you.

We can all agree that you can get addicted to drugs, right? Right. If you don't, then you probably don't understand how much of anything works. Now, what happens when you become chemically addicted to the junk, AND psychologically addicted to it? You've got one hell of a mess, that's what.

See, you'll become dependent of that stuff whenever you need to feel better. Grandmother die? Didn't get that one job you really needed? Your favorite mechanical pencil ran out of graphite?  No amount of natural mouring and time will heal you; your body can't feel good without that fix. It's like a lazy eye: if something else is doing the work, your body will stop working properly.

Your body is like a bid who can fly a plane. "What's the point of flying with my wings if I can just use that big machine?" Your body will ask to itself. "Nothing," it'll reply, because it's a little insane and talks to itself.

But how about the versus part of the suggestion? Well, I suppose it's all subjective. But, in my humble opinion, the latter group -- the ones who cope -- could actually have a more serious problem. While their condition is infinitely more pitiable, it could lead to more serious and detrimental effects. They begin doing drugs for an unhealthy reason and develop compounds of consequences because of it.

This was a really tough matter for me to comprehend, so what I've said here is a little rough at best. Maybe it's because I've been stressed about a broken computer (the reason why this post is so late), maybe it's because I'm sitting at my desk at 2:30 in the morning. In the dark. In my underwear. Either way, the topic of drug use is something I'll have to come back to at some point and give it a lot of thought.

All that being said, drugs are still a poor way to accomplish whatever goals you aim for. If you're trying to fit in with the cool kids, then screw them! Buy a bag of chips and I'll come bum with you for a while. If you're trying to cope, then go with a much healthier activity. Do some exercise. I can vouch for that one working. You'll feel like a champ afterward. Like you could take on Lance Armstrong. Who did steroids and lost everything. Don't be like Lance Armstrong.  Follow the old adage that's been running around in my head since I began typing this: Don't do drugs, give hugs!